People vs.

Sabalones (294 SCRA 751, August 31, 1998)

Appeal from a decision of the RTC of Cebu
Ponente: Panganiban, J.

Procedural History:
The RTC convicted Rolusape Sabalones and Timoteo Beronga of 2 counts of murder and 3
counts of frustrated murder. Penalty for murder: 14yrs 8mos 1 day -17yrs 4mos 1day,
indemnity of 50,000; Penalty for frustrated murder: 8 yrs - 14yrs 8mos, indemnity of
20,000
Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Penalty for murder:
reclusion perpetua; Penalty for frustrated murder: 10yrs-17yrs 4mos; Indemnity affirmed
o Case elevated to Supreme Court for review
Facts: (from testimony of Edwin Santos, a survivor)

Together with Nelson Tiempo, who was at the wheel, Rogelio Presores, Rogelio Oliveros and Junior
Villoria, they drove to the residence of Stephen Lim at Mansueto Compound, Bulacao, Talisay,
Cebu.

Edwin Santos, Glenn Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Alfredo Nardo (driver) also went riding in an owner-
type jeep, in order to bring back the group [as] soon as the car of Mr. Lim was parked in his
home.

The two vehicles traveled in convoy with the jeep 3 to 4 meters ahead of the car. When they
arrived at the gate of the house of Stephen Lim, they were met with a sudden burst of gunfire.

Edwin Santos looked at the direction where the gunfire came, and saw [the] persons [who] fired
at the jeep. He identified accused, Teodulo Alegarbes, Rolusape Sabalones and Timoteo Beronga
as the persons who fired at the vehicle.

Contention of the People: Prosecution witnesses Edwin Santos and Rogelio Presores testified
about the shooting and identified the faces of the accused. Presores was riding in the car that is
behind the jeep. He positively identified Sabalones as one of the gunmen. When the gunmen
fired at the car, driver Nelson Tiempo immediately maneuvered and arrived at Major Juan
Tiempos house from which they have escaped death.

Contention of the Accused: Accused-appellants Sabalones and Beronga denied their presence
during the commission of the crime. Sabalones presented numerous witnesses who stated that
he was sound asleep when the incident took place [since he got tired watching over his brothers
wake]. While Beronga testified that he attended a cock-derby in Cebu, and was fetched by his
wife at 7 pm, arrived home by 10:30 pm to sleep. Sabalones even escaped from place to place to
flee from the wrath of Maj. Juan Tiempo, the father of the two victims. The defense even pointed
out errors from the testimonies of the witnesses arguing that the place where the incident
happened is dim and not lighted.

Issue 1: Whether the prosecution witnesses and evidences are credible?

Yes. RTC findings were binding to court with appreciated testimonies of two witnesses. There was
positive identification by survivors who saw them when they peered during lulls in gunfire. The
place was well-lit, whether from post of cars headlights. The extrajudicial confession has no
bearing because the conviction was based on positive identification. It is binding though to the
co-accused because it is used as circumstantial evidence corroborated by one witness. The
inconsistencies are minor and inconsequential which strengthen credibility of testimony.

Aberratio Ictus ( Mistake of blow)

Appellants likewise accuse the trial court of engaging in conjecture in ruling that there
was aberratio ictus in this case.
This allegation does not advance the cause of the appellants. It must be stressed that the trial
court relied on the concept of aberratio ictus to explain why the appellants staged the ambush,
not to prove that appellants did in fact commit the crimes. Even assuming that the trial court did
err in explaining the motive of the appellants, this does not detract from its findings, as affirmed
by the Court of Appeals and sustained by this Court in the discussion above, that the guilt of the
appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In any event, the trial court was not engaging in conjecture in so ruling. The conclusion of the
trial court and the Court of Appeals that the appellants killed the wrong persons was based on
the extrajudicial statement of Appellant Beronga and the testimony of Jennifer Binghoy. These
pieces of evidence sufficiently show that appellants believed that they were suspected of
having killed the recently slain Nabing Velez, and that they expected his group to
retaliate against them. Hence, upon the arrival of the victims vehicles which they mistook to
be carrying the avenging men of Nabing Velez, appellants opened fire. Nonetheless, the fact
that they were mistaken does not diminish their culpability. The Court has held that
mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused
zeroes in on his intended victim
The case is better characterized as error in personae or mistake in the identity of the
victims, rather than aberratio ictus which means mistake in the blow, characterized by aiming at
one but hitting the other due to imprecision in the blow.

Issue 2: Whether the alibis are acceptable?

No. It was still quite near the crime scene. It is overruled by positive identification. Using the case
of People v. Nescio, Alibi is not credible when the accused-appellant is only a short distance from
the scene of the crime. Furthermore, flight indicates guilt.

Issue 3:Whether the correct penalty is imposed?

No. Under Article 248 of the RPC, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum
period, to death. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, aside from the
qualifying circumstance of treachery, the appellate court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua
for murder. The CA erred in computing the penalty for each of the three counts of frustrated
murder. Under Article 50 of the RPC, the penalty for frustrated felony is next lower in degree than
that prescribed by law for the consummated felony because there are no mitigating or
aggravating conspiracy between the two accused..

Also there was a presence of treachery, because of the circumstances that the crime was done at
night time and that the accused hid themselves among the bamboo. Evident premeditation is
also an aggravating circumstance [the accused had planned to kill the victim some days before].
Supreme Court Judgment: Decision is affirmed. Penalty is modified.
Murder: Reclusion perpetua; indemnity of 50,000
Frustrated Murder: 8yrs-14yrs 8mos; indemnity to be paid should be the actual damages
(hospital bills)